paul from edi, page-41

Bantry,

Your bilious, negative rhetoric really is wearing rather thin.

You are quite an articulate writer but, for some readers unfortunately, it gives your posts a surface credibility that they don't deserve.

Take this post , for example.

You say that SBN "continues to disappoint the market in every way possible as it had done until now".

You know as well as everyone that there have been several occasions of good news. While not sustained as yet, the news (the whole SiYi story for example, except for the recent QC issue)is often positive. But, more significantly, you also know that 95% of stocks on the bourse have 'disappointed' over the past year or so - for mostly non-company specific reasons.

You also say that you are "not so naive as to live in blind hope". That's sensible, of course, but in reference to SBN, it is just hype. Why? Simply because of the SiYi JV. There are obviously risks in it (as so eloquently stated by Deepfish yesterday) but it is far, far more than 'blind hope'. Just re-read the JV history if you have any doubts.

Again, the alleged 'spurious reasons' for being bulish are hardly spurious or nonsense - as you put it!

Warren Buffet may be wrong sometimes - but I'd be prepared to bet that followers of WB have been somewhat more successful than the followers of Bantrybay over recent years. I'd also conjecture that MF has been more succesful than Bantrybay. And, of course, director or insider buying has long been held to be a 'valid' (but, of course, not foolproof) guide to possible investment value.

Finally, you say "I can point you to hundreds of biotechs in the US run by supposed talent like Kerins...most of them are insolvent".

Nice try Bantry. The reality, though, is that SBN is not (yet at least) insolvent and we have not yet seen your spreadsheet showing how the CEO's of these 'hundreds of biotechs' are just like JK!

You're a good wordsmith Bantry - but you are also querulous, frustrated and impatient. So what we mainly get from you is negative hype and rhetoric.